role="main" class="main-container container js-quickedit-main-content" id="main-content">

October 16, 2008

39th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2008-Oct-16 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Thursday 16 October 2008 Jeudi 16 octobre 2008

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ONTARIO ECONOMY

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

ORAL QUESTIONS

ONTARIO ECONOMY

GOVERNMENT SPENDING

MANUFACTURING AND

FORESTRY SECTOR JOBS

HYDRO RATES

EMPLOYMENT SUPPORTS

POVERTY

GREENBELT

VIOLENT CRIME

CHILD CARE

ONTARIO FILM AND

TELEVISION INDUSTRY

HOSPITAL SERVICES

ELEMENTARY TEACHERS

GREAT LAKES

TOBACCO CONTROL

TOBACCO CONTROL

STANDING ORDERS

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

COLORECTAL CANCER

OTONABEE REGION

CONSERVATION FOUNDATION

INTERNATIONAL CREDIT UNION DAY

WORKPLACE SAFETY

HYDRO RATES

HEALTHY SCHOOLS

INTERNATIONAL CREDIT UNION DAY

EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES

LONG-TERM CARE

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

ONTARIO ELDER ABUSE

AWARENESS DAY /

JOURNÉE DE SENSIBILISATION

À LA PRÉVENTION

DES MAUVAIS TRAITEMENTS

À L'ÉGARD DES PERSONNES ÂGÉES.

GREAT LAKES-ST. LAWRENCE RIVER BASIN

WATER RESOURCES COMPACT

JOURNÉE DE SENSIBILISATION

À LA PRÉVENTION

DES MAUVAIS TRAITEMENTS

À L'ÉGARD DES PERSONNES ÂGÉES /

ONTARIO ELDER ABUSE

AWARENESS DAY

GREAT LAKES-ST. LAWRENCE RIVER BASIN

WATER RESOURCES COMPACT

GREAT LAKES-ST. LAWRENCE RIVER BASIN

WATER RESOURCES COMPACT

JOURNÉE DE SENSIBILISATION

À LA PRÉVENTION

DES MAUVAIS TRAITEMENTS

À L'ÉGARD DES PERSONNES ÂGÉES /

ONTARIO ELDER ABUSE

AWARENESS DAY

PETITIONS

GASOLINE PRICES

HOSPITAL FUNDING

HOSPITAL SERVICES

EMERGENCY DISPATCH SERVICES

HOSPICES

SEXUAL REASSIGNMENT SURGERY

HOSPITAL FUNDING

HOSPITAL SERVICES

HOSPICES

GASOLINE PRICES

FIREARMS CONTROL

BEER RETAILING AND DISTRIBUTION

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

PRIVATE MEMBERS'

PUBLIC BUSINESS

HOME ENERGY RATING ACT, 2008 /

LOI DE 2008 SUR L'ÉVALUATION

DE L'ÉNERGIE DOMESTIQUE

FUEL SAFETY

WASTE REPORTING ACT, 2008 /

LOI DE 2008 SUR LES RENSEIGNEMENTS

À FOURNIR CONCERNANT LES DÉCHETS

HOME ENERGY RATING ACT, 2008 /

LOI DE 2008 SUR L'ÉVALUATION

DE L'ÉNERGIE DOMESTIQUE

FUEL SAFETY

WASTE REPORTING ACT, 2008 /

LOI DE 2008 SUR LES RENSEIGNEMENTS

À FOURNIR CONCERNANT LES DÉCHETS

ORDERS OF THE DAY

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES

STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 2008 /

LOI DE 2008 MODIFIANT DES LOIS

EN CE QUI CONCERNE LES SERVICES

À L'ENFANCE ET À LA FAMILLE

The House met at 0900.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Please remain standing for the Lord's Prayer, followed by the non-denominational prayer.

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ONTARIO ECONOMY

Resuming the debate adjourned on October 15, 2008, on the amendment to the amendment to the motion by Mr. McGuinty to acknowledge the economic challenges facing the province and continuing to implement an economic plan.

Hon. Michael Bryant: Mr. Speaker, may I say, perhaps on a point of order, that I'm advised that in the course of the debate, in the member's speech, we are going to hit the 6.5-hour mark. I wanted to indicate in advance that because of the importance of this special debate, it's our intention that the debate continue beyond that mark.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): So ordered.

Further debate?

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: It is a pleasure to rise and speak to this motion. First, I should say that it's interesting that the motion was even made, that finally, the government admits that there is a problem–there's a problem with our economy. But it's interesting how the motion is phrased. They say that we are suffering from competition from China and India especially, and their response to that problem in the motion is to expand our trade ties within Canada and internationally and seek help from the federal government.

Well, I certainly would propose, and we in the New Democratic Party would propose, that there is a great deal more that the McGuinty Liberals could be doing than just looking for a saviour from without, either internationally or federally.

I listened with some interest to the speech given by the Minister of International Trade and Investment yesterday. It was delivered with verve and élan, as she discussed travelling around the world, from Shanghai to Dubai. It was really quite exciting. I especially liked the part where she talked about being in the helicopter in Dubai circling a tower of glass that rose a kilometre up. This is fascinating stuff.

I was reminded very much of one of my favourite movies, Doctor Zhivago, of that great scene where inside the restaurant people are dining with sterling silver, the best china, beautiful, beautiful costumes, sparkling chandeliers, caviar, champagne on every table, and outside the restaurant, the children who are living on the streets are pressing their grubby little hands and faces to the window, watching with amazement the consumption within. Well, certainly most of the people who are living in Ontario right now are watching, like those little children in the movie Dr.

Zhivago, the consumption that's going on within the McGuinty government, as they look in from outside, having lost their jobs—many of them lost their homes, lost their livelihoods—without much chance at ever finding that halcyon option that the Minister of International Trade and Investment has of flying off to Dubai or to Shanghai at a moment's notice.

The real question here is, whose economy is it anyway? Whose economy is suffering? Only 10% of Ontarians make over $150,000 a year. I'm sure that the men and women who have been hosting the Minister of International Trade and Investment and the ones she has been flying around the world with are part of that 10% if they're from this province. I'm sure that their workers in many instances, and the workers who have been laid off, are part of the 90% of Ontarians who aren't going to benefit from trade with China, trade with India or trade with Dubai. They're not the ones who are going to benefit.

Last night, I had the great good fortune of being at one of our local business improvement area annual general meetings—the Roncesvalles one in this instance. But there was someone from TABIA, which is the oversight small business group for all of the BIAs across the Toronto area. I can tell you that for those small business people in that room, the fact that Sandra Pupatello is in Dubai, in China or in Shanghai is not going to help them one bit. We must remember that small businesses are the major employers across the province. They're the ones that always, and traditionally, produce the most jobs.

Those folks want to see something very different out of the McGuinty Liberals, and they've been asking for the same things over and over again, without much success.

I think of Karl, Karl's butcher shop. That was a cause célèbre when poor Karl went out of business after 41 years as a butcher because of red tape and bureaucracy on the part of this government and a $200,000 investment he was going to have to make to please them—after the city of Toronto had vetted him time and time again as being completely in compliance with the health regulations. So small business complains about red tape. Small business also complains about the unfairness of the business education tax and the way it's levied across Ontario. This is something the McGuinty Liberals could address immediately.

It's something that they could do easily to make it fairer. Right now, those who are in the 416 area pay way more than the those who are in the 905 area, and there's no justification for that.

Small business is also concerned in many instances about rate and rent controls. This is a problem for small business. You can imagine if you opened a retail store and your rent is one thing one year, and then your store is successful, and your landlord thinks, "Ah," does a little bit of a money grab, and doubles your rent the next year. There is no protection for small business in the way of rent control—not even rent guideline control. So that's something else that small business really needs from this government and really has not received.

Again, the fact that Sandra Pupatello is in Dubai or Shanghai doesn't help the small business person who's on Main Street, not on Bay Street. We're talking to people on Main Street, and in my riding that means Queen Street or Dundas Street West; it means Roncesvalles Avenue; it means Bloor Street West. These are the people who need the help from this government; they're not getting it. If you're in one of the towers on Bay Street, maybe you're happy. Maybe you're one of the ones sitting in the helicopter as it's flying around the one kilometre glass tower in Dubai.

Maybe you are, but I can tell you none of the small business owners who were at the dinner I attended last night were ever invited and will see no benefit whatsoever from those trips around the world.

Whose economy is it anyway? That's another question one can ask for all of those who are not small business owners but are those who actually work. Many of them have lost their jobs. Over 200,000, 230,000, 250,000, we hear, have lost their jobs in the last five years alone. Again, the fact that Ms. Pupatello is in Dubai or Shanghai is not helping them.

I think about someone in her own riding. This is a story that was in the Globe and Mail, about a gentleman in Windsor—and if we think the mortgage crisis is only hitting south of the border, we are absolutely incorrect. This gentleman was actually going to lose his house. He had, first of all, lost his job in the auto industry—so much for those investments. But second, his mortgage came up for renewal, and guess what? Most banks will not give you a mortgage beyond 80% of the value of your house. Well, this gentleman's house had dropped below the level his mortgage was at, so he actually owed more than his house was worth and the bank would not renegotiate with him.

This is a story that's going to repeat itself across the country. It's a chilling tale, because we know that many Ontarians, many Canadians, are mortgaged to more than 80% of their house, or if they're mortgaged to 80%, they're counting on a buoyant real estate market to see that value realized. When they go to renegotiate their mortgage and their house price drops dramatically—I know I'm speaking to people watching right now who are in this position—they are in trouble. Couple that with the loss of a job at the same time, and they are in deep trouble indeed. This is within the minister's own riding in Windsor.

I wonder what he thought. It's sort of like the Doctor Zhivago story again: the little children pressed against the glass watching those people enjoy massive consumption within the glorious restaurant as they are kind of watching from outside. I imagine that he listened to the tales of international travel with the same sense as that child in Moscow during the reign of the czars. It's not going to help him. It's not going to help him renegotiate his mortgage; it's not going to help him get a job.

Then comes the question, in terms of whose economy is it, of what kind of job we're talking about. What kind of jobs are we going to provide the citizens of Ontario with her junkets to places like China and India?

If I know one thing about China—and I was quite shocked to hear that another trade office is opening there after all the promises, all the pressure on this government to speak about human rights in China, to speak about the trials and tribulations of the Tibetan people, many of whom live in my riding and who have been demanding some action of the McGuinty government. They're not saying, "Don't do trade with China," they're not saying, "Don't visit China." What they're saying is, "If you go to China, it's unconscionable to go there without raising the issue of human rights." One can also mention workers' rights.

It's unconscionable to do trade with China without raising the issue of workers' rights there.

We know that many of the products that come from China are produced in sweatshops. We know that. We don't want to compete with that in Ontario. We don't want sweatshop jobs here, and we don't want our workers to have to produce goods that compete with those kinds of wages. What we need in Ontario are good union jobs.

I think of an example: My husband and I went to Sweden, a country of nine million people—we have 13 million in Ontario, so it's comparable. Sweden is an international trading country. They have Sony Ericsson, they have H&M, they have Ikea, they have Volvo—this is a country that produces. It's also a country that looks after its citizens. Sweden is a country where you have a dental plan until age 18. Sweden is a country where 85% of the workforce is unionized—where the McDonald's workers are unionized—where, de facto, the minimum wage is just under $12 an hour. We're asking for $10.25 here, a paltry amount.

It could be argued that you can't even live on $10.25. What do we have instead? We have $8.75, which you definitely cannot live on, which is definitely below the poverty line.

But in Sweden it's different. In Sweden, what do they do that we don't do here? Certainly they don't have the poverty rates we have here; certainly they don't have the child poverty rates we have here. Why don't they? Well, simple things. They have dental plans and real and absolutely comprehensive health plans. They have subsidized government daycare—not only in Sweden; they have it in Quebec, right next door, for $7 a day. They have subsidized universities, so that students aren't massively encumbered with debt as soon as they walk out the door with a degree. How do they do that and still produce, and still be an international trading force?

Well, one of the things they do is that they have government policies that urge Swedes to buy Swedish. Certainly, when we were over there, it seemed like every third or fourth Swede drove a Volvo. There is a reason for that. This is a government that absolutely supports their own industry and that urges and has mandates in place for those who live there to buy from the country they live in—not to buy goods produced by sweatshops in India or China. No, that's not the answer. The answer is good jobs there for them, and it should be good jobs—good union jobs—here for us, because work isn't working in Ontario. This is something this government has not addressed at all.

We remember the tale of a private member's bill that obviously got squashed by the McGuinty cabinet that was trying to do the very minimum, which was to license temporary agencies. But we need far more than just licensing temporary agencies. We need far more than that to make work, work. Here is what we need; here is a simple plan that wouldn't cost a dime in tax dollars and wouldn't affect the bottom line of the budget across the way, but would make a significant difference in the lives of workers in Ontario.

First of all, as I've said many times in this House, as I introduced a bill that was voted down by the McGuinty government, we need a living wage. What is a living wage? It's a wage that's right above the poverty line. That used to be $10; it's now $10.25. It should be indexed to inflation. This would help everyone. This, by definition, would take about 1.2 million people out of poverty. Right now, what we have is those working 40 hours, 60 hours—some 80 and 90 hours—a week just to pay the rent and feed the children.

We should not only license temporary agencies, but we should render any fees for applicants to temporary agencies illegal. They used to be illegal, but this government is turning a blind eye to the abuses that go on in the temporary and contract agency business. Remember that 37% of Ontarians now work in precarious employment. They work at contract jobs; they work at temporary jobs. They don't know if they will have a job next week or tomorrow or next month. We need to address that fact.

We need to immediately inspect at least 25% of all employers. Most employers never see anybody from employment standards. They never see anybody. We have millions of dollars of unpaid wages that have not been collected, because there is no recourse for workers. If you don't get your paycheque, too bad. Walk away. A worker who is unemployed doesn't have time to fight through the bureaucracy to see if they can get the money. Most often, they don't have the expertise. Sometimes they don't have the language skills, and they certainly don't have the lawyers.

They also stand outside that conspicuous-consumption-fest of Sandra Pupatello and the McGuinty government flying around the world while they suffer.

We need to raise the fines for non-compliant employers once we inspect them. A slap on the wrist is not enough for an employer who hires people and doesn't pay them, or who consistently breaks employment standards. It's not good enough to slap them on the wrist with a $500 or a $5,000 fine. We need significant fines that will make a significant dent in their bottom line to show them that we mean business as a government and as a society.

We should insist, as they do in the European Union, on a timeline for those who are going from temporary work to permanent work. It's absolutely unconscionable that someone can work as a temporary worker year after year in the same place. We have seen this from those with PhDs to those who haven't finished high school. We've seen this with contract university teachers and professors who have doctorates and teach on contract, making way less than their full-time counterparts, and there's no redress for them. In fact, this government only just finally allowed them the right to unionize.

Of course, I want to give a nod to all those in the New Democratic caucus, and all their answers, many of which would not cost anything in tax dollars, to address the issues of the economy, of the 90% of Ontarians—the lucky ones—who work for a living in this province.

First of all we have Michael Prue, with the poverty file. He has talked time and time again about raising ODSP rates. It's unconscionable, it's egregious that if you are disabled and you cannot work, we have basically relegated you to a life of extreme hardship and poverty.

We have Andrea Horwath, with her child care bills. We need child care, finally. We have been fighting for this for 40, 50 years in the women's movement, and we still don't have a government-sponsored child care program in this province like they do in Quebec, like they do in most countries in Europe.

Peter Kormos, in labour—we need card-check certification. We need to make it easy for people to unionize. Only if it's easy to unionize will people have a dignified job. We've seen this in European countries, where they have high rates of unionization and they have high rates of benefits, high rates of social services and—guess what?—stronger economies, for the most part, than we do here in Ontario.

We have Mr. Miller, with his bill to assist those who have been laid off. They should be paid first, not last, after the banks, when a company goes bankrupt.

We have France Gélinas, my benchmate here, who has talked about dental care and how, in Sweden, they were shocked to know we didn't have a dental care program, because bad teeth mean poverty.

And Peter Tabuns, with his shift to a green economy: Instead of spending $40 billion to $50 billion on nuclear reactors—highly expensive energy—what we need is an energy policy that's going to assist people.

So all of this is what we're asking for, in the New Democratic Party. Instead, the response from the McGuinty Liberals is to go begging, cap in hand, to the government, where we've gone from first to worst in provinces. Even if they got their so-called fairness and transfer payments from the federal government, we're talking about $1.3 billion. We have a $50-billion infrastructure deficit in this province right now. As if that would make the telling difference. This is a way of really pointing the blame at someone else and not actually doing what's required to be done by the government right here and right now.

They, of course, say that they have produced jobs. But when you look at the jobs, what do you see? You see half of them in the public sector; you see the other half of them, the McJobs, the temporary, contract jobs, jobs that aren't good union jobs. Our rate of unionization continues to go down, and that's the real rate of a job with dignity.

So certainly, we in the New Democrats have a number of policies, most of which would not cost a tax dime, and most of which would address the real economy of Ontario. That is the economy of 90% of working Ontarians, those in jobs and in small business, and not the 10% who are flying up there around that one-kilometre-tall glass tower in Dubai with the Minister of International Trade and Investment or opening up shameful trade agencies in countries that do not have the human rights record that we have, and certainly do not have the workers' rights record that we have. Thank you very much for a chance to speak to this.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Further debate?

Mr. David Ramsay: I'm very pleased to get up and contribute to this debate. It reminds me of the opening lines of the Charles Dickens novel A Tale of Two Cities. The line there is, "It was the best of times, it was the worst of times." That's what it is. This is a time of very extreme transition, of this economy really changing from the manufacturing-based economy of autos and steel and moving to green technology. We're on the cutting edge of that.

Unlike the doom-and-gloom speech we heard from the previous speaker, Ontario and the McGuinty government, over the last four years, has been investing into the new economy, with programs such as our advanced manufacturing programs and our future jobs fund. We have been investing in those new jobs because that's where we want to position Ontario.

Premier McGuinty understands that the future is to become that green economy. Ontario, through this government, wants to be the leader of that new economy. So we've been investing in companies that are creating the new products, the biotech companies, the green product companies, because we have great innovation, great ingenuity in this province. So we have research and development in this province. I can't think of a jurisdiction in the world that is more prepared to make that leap into the next economy, which is the green economy.

Coupled with that, what we obviously are doing is training our workers to move into that new green economy so that these green jobs are going to be available. We'll need our green workers and green-collar workers, which is one of the new phrases that is being coined when it comes to describing what the workforce is going to look like with these new jobs. It's a very exciting possibility for us here in Ontario, and the power of the government procurement is one way we can certainly drive that.

We traditionally help companies by giving them grants and giving them loans. To get them up to scale, we certainly can start to procure or buy those high-tech products from them and start applying them to government services and buildings. So we should be looking at our office buildings and getting solar technology put on there, whether it's a solar wall to create warm air or hot water systems or photovoltaic systems to create electricity, we should be harnessing the energy of the sun, where all energy comes from, and start to utilize the technology that's being built here.

We see jurisdictions like Germany that are world leaders in this. That is the future, and Germany has done that. In fact, there was a story on the national news last night where we saw the town of Freiburg in the Black Forest region, in the southern part of Germany, looking at moving toward carbon neutrality. How are they doing that? Well, they're building homes that are very energy-efficient. They're applying all the technology that's there, and because of the growth of that market, the companies can get up to scale and start producing these new technologies in a mass way.

That's what we have to do in Ontario. That's where we are going in Ontario, to develop this new green economy. We want to be the North American leader and then the world leader in this. Not only are we going to need that here in our North American market, we're also going to be world exporters on this, because all the other jurisdictions in the world are going to have to catch up. In this new green economy, it's a tremendous business opportunity to consume and emit less carbon.

Businesses are looking at this and they are starting to move, probably in some cases faster than governments, and are starting to reduce their carbon needs. Basically what you're talking about is the decline of energy consumption, and so through the employment of new technology, we can do this.

One of the interesting ideas that people are talking about is what's called an energy Internet. We know how the Internet started: In the United States, university professors wanted to link up their computers across the country. Well, we can start to connect our smart appliances together so that they can talk together within a house or a business, but not only that, to communicate back to the utility. When the price of electricity is high, the signal goes to the home and then the appliances, the hot water heater, and those things start to shut down in the middle of the day when we have peak power demand.

So when we have these smart appliances and a smart system, our utilities can manage the distribution of electricity better. We don't have to build for peak and we don't have to be always just concentrating on the supply side, but more on the demand side. So we have to just work smarter.

That's why the McGuinty government is positioning Ontario to be that world leader. That's where we're going. So it's important for our trade minister to be travelling to other countries, saying to the world that Ontario is open for business, that we are a world-class jurisdiction, and that we want them to come and invest in Ontario. That creates jobs. The previous speaker sort of belittled that.

But look what's going on in Woodstock right now with the Toyota plant near the end of its construction phase and how it acted as a magnet for all these other businesses, small businesses, that are going to avail themselves of the opportunity of having this assembly plant there. It spawns a lot of small business in that area. There's great prosperity in that area because it was this government that attracted that anchor industry. At that time, it was the previous minister, Joe Cordiano, going over to Japan and talking to the Toyota people about how open Ontario was to this investment. So these jobs are there.

There's been a mass of construction jobs, and Toyota is hiring their assembly workers as we speak now. That just bodes so well for that particular part of southwestern Ontario. It's not just Woodstock, but it stretches from Kitchener—Waterloo down to London, that whole area where workers are starting to move in, are starting to create new businesses.

That's the type of thing that our trade minister is doing: talking to the major corporations, telling them Ontario is open for business and, through that, those anchor industries coming into Ontario, creating a lot of work for small business and also direct employment.

I would like to talk about some of the progress that some of the sectors are making in Ontario. I was very familiar, in my last assignment as Minister of Natural Resources, with the need to help the forestry industry reinvest in itself to become that new, green industry. Right now, today, across the country, forestry is about 60% carbon-neutral. They are moving off of fossil fuels and using forestry waste for much of their energy needs, and in another four years they will be carbon-neutral.

They will use all their waste products to create heat for their sawmills and their various manufacturing operations, whether it's creating paper, oriented strand board, or some of the new products that are being invented. We are constantly working with the forestry industry, giving them financial support to retool at this time to be the new industry of the future.

It is a green industry and it's getting greener and greener, and these have been very tough times for that industry. Coming from northern Ontario, I certainly appreciate how challenging it has been. So we're working with our workforce up there and we're retraining for those new jobs, training forestry workers for mining jobs, because those are the boom jobs that are happening right now in centres such as Timmins and Sudbury, where mining is doing very, very well.

We are in a period of adjustment and it's the McGuinty government that is there helping those companies make that adjustment, helping our workers and families make that adjustment. That is the future, and I'm glad to be part of a government that is with its province, with its workers and with its families to make sure we can make that transition into that new economy and make sure that Ontario remains the most prosperous jurisdiction in North America.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Further debate?

Mr. Peter Shurman: It gives me pleasure to rise in this Legislature today to speak to Premier McGuinty's motion on the economy—not so much pleasure, however, when looking at the economy itself. Because it seems to me that in debating a motion like this, the McGuinty Liberals are not so much seeking collaboration from this Legislature—would that they were—as they are looking for absolution, and I don't have that power. Nobody here has that power.

I actually wish that this debate could really put aside partisanship and that we could all get together and do what we're here to do, because this discussion is about the economic health of Ontario and there is no debate on why each and every one of us was sent by our constituents to this chamber, which is to see to things that are as basic and as essential as the economic health of this province.

But this motion appears to want to underscore the good economic stewardship of the McGuinty government. I can't support the idea that there has been, to date, good economic stewardship by this government. If it were that good, I don't believe that the two opposition parties on this side of the House would have spent the majority of question period since I've been here, which is a year, and long before that as I've been a student of this Legislature, with questions in question period that pertain to an economy that is undeniably in decline, and admittedly on the part of the Premier in decline.

The McGuinty Liberals have essentially made a mess of the economy, and they are about to make a bigger mess of Ontario's finances. That concerns us, and it should concern every Ontarian. Don't ask in a motion, effectively, "Are we doing a job that is good, or is it better, or is it really fantastic?" Ask if we on this side of the aisle could actually have some ideas that would assist. Both opposition parties have put forward amendments to this motion, and they are serious outreach ideas on the part of both the Progressive Conservatives and the NDP.

Our caucus will not support the motion as originally worded, and the NDP caucus has already also proposed an amendment. We congratulate them for their efforts, but we cannot support that either at this point. Right now, we fear that where we're headed in this province is for a deficit. We fear further hardship for beleaguered Ontarians and we're looking for ways to reach across and stop this because this is, and I say it again, about the health of Ontario and, therefore, the health of its citizens.

The government is trying to bully this motion through the Legislature. At the end of the day, this motion will pass because there are 71 people on that side and they'll vote as a bloc. I appeal to you, all of you on the other side, to give that some careful thought, because there are constituents back there for all of us who expect more. What they'll say is that we did not stand up for Ontario. You hear it in this Legislature every day: that we did not stand up for Ontario. But it's not true.

They'll keep talking about fairness when, in fact, after talking about fairness incessantly and launching a website, what they got was a scant 15,000 signatures on a website that was supposed to support a concept that there's an unfairness inherent in the system, in Ottawa's treatment of Ontario. For goodness' sake, we got 50,000 signatures from people who wanted the Lord's Prayer continued here—but let's not go there.

The government will whip all Liberal MPPs to vote in favour of the motion, and that's getting pretty tired. All of the backbenchers over there: You want to be re-elected too. It's not about being re-elected; it's about doing the right thing. Maybe it's time to break ranks. I debate in this House with a fair amount of frequency, and my constituents like the fact that I do that, because at least I put some ideas on the table, and I would like to think that every single one of you, as colleagues, does the same thing. Do yours endorse what you're doing? Do your constituents endorse what you're doing, as jobs disappear and as your kids go elsewhere?

Premier McGuinty, having recited his litany of possible excuses for Ontario's economic woes, is, with this motion, holding his hands up and saying, "Mr. Speaker, it wasn't me. It was globalization, it was the US dollar"—I guess that one's gone for a while—"it was the US government or it was maybe" our "government five years ago. It was Ottawa." Maybe it was the man in the moon. McGuinty is kind of like an ill-prepared student in class who blames his failing grade on the teacher.

Some of his reasoning, in looking at these various aspects of why our economy is in the shape it is, has merit; there is no question, and I wouldn't argue that. But a lot doesn't. A lot of it is responsibility that rests with the government of the day, and for five years, the McGuinty government has been the government of the day and we've been raising red flags on the other side of this House, saying, "Look, the problems are coming." And, "No. It's a five-point plan, it's a five-point plan, and by the way, it's a five-point plan"—those are the answers that we get.

Perhaps it has not occurred to Premier McGuinty that, outside of photo opportunities, he may actually have to weather an economic storm by preparing Ontario to handle the worst of the waves. If you sail the seas—or, like me, you fly an airplane—you have to know where you're going; you have to know what the weather is like at the other end; you have to prepare for the worst. You cannot quote a five-point plan once you're flying in the middle of that storm. Failure to prepare the province for what we warned and what the experts warned was coming is, and was, negligent at best and incompetent at worst.

Can we address some of this together? We could. But will we? The greatest character flaw is the Liberal government grabbing at straws to explain the situation. They blamed the US; they blamed Ottawa; they blamed transfer payments. As I've said, Dalton McGuinty did everything but examine his own spending-like-it's-going-out-of-style, job-crushing policies, and now they want us to agree that whatever they've been doing so far has been working. How can we do that? How can the Liberal backbenchers go to their constituents and justify passing this motion? We certainly can't.

Ontario is at the unfavourable end of a bell curve right now, compared to the rest of Canada. We're not on the right heading. Can we not change course? That's the question. Can we do that now? I would have hoped that a full debate lasting five days in this Legislature would result in an ability to come together and do something about changing course.

For the first time in 30 years, unemployment rates in Ontario are above the national average. They rose to 6.5% in December 2007, and remain above average and are forecasted to stay there throughout 2009. So we do have the same troubles as everyone else, and we have our homegrown ones, and it's those that we can address. Inflation rose to 2.8% in June compared to 1.8% in May. What does that tell you? The simple answer—well, it was gas prices. It doesn't change the fact that people have to put their hands in their pockets and pay for this stuff. You can't take a tax-and-spend approach when people just don't have the money to pay.

Two hundred and four thousand manufacturing jobs have been lost since 2005. Banks are tightening their purse strings. The average Ontarian is justifiably worried. There's not one of us in this chamber who hasn't been in the home riding who hasn't been approached; who hasn't, sitting in his or her office here, received e-mails and letters saying, "What am I supposed to do?" There are no easy answers, and I wish I had them to give. The Canadian Federation of Independent Business says that credit concerns are accelerating—accelerating, indeed.

Pension plans have taken the biggest hit in decades, and no, it's not necessarily the fault of the McGuinty government that this has happened but it is the responsibility of the McGuinty government to help address it, because when dollars disappear on a personal level, taxes can't continue to be taken at the same rate.

Our seniors, whom I have particularly sought to assist, are really scared. Is that what you want? Certainly not I. If I were on a fixed income—and I'm probably going to be 10 years from now—and I was withdrawing on a regular basis some amount that I had determined was necessary to cover my living expenses, my needs, and I saw a great big hunk taken away from the pool, I'd wonder how long I could continue to live at that particular level as I continued to grow old. Then I'd start to wonder about when it was I was going to die, and that's what's going on in the homes of many seniors now and that's why we're talking about what is not, in effect, but is a de facto economic crisis.

Jobs have packed up and they've moved out of Ontario. Volvo moved from Goderich to Pennsylvania and took 500 jobs with them. In my own riding of Thornhill, a residential riding, 3,000 jobs disappeared in the last six months. Three thousand jobs in Thornhill? If any of you have not visited Thornhill, let me describe it very simply: a bedroom community. It's just houses and apartment buildings. We don't have very much industry, so when 3,000 jobs go, you're talking about a very significant percentage, and that is just my riding. They moved because they needed a more competitive environment.

They needed a preferential tax structure. They needed cheaper energy. They needed workers readily available. We have the workers. We need the training for those workers so that they can adjust to today's economy, and the McGuinty government continues to tell us that the programs exist. But they don't, not in sufficient numbers and not geared properly. John Deere took 800 from its Welland plant and moved operations to Mexico and to Wisconsin. We've now heard about Daimler's truck facility closing in St. Thomas.

Ontario has gained only 700 full-time jobs since the last provincial election back in 2007, yet Dalton McGuinty wants us to say that he has done right by this province. Come on, let's not politicize people's well-being. We are in this chamber together to solve problems. We're all standing up and providing, yes, some criticism, but the criticism, I hope, is constructive and my constructive criticism is: Let's take the bull by the horns here and let's understand that you can't keep stonewalling. You've got to say there are people here with other ideas.

We come together, three parties and one independent, because we have ideas that are not particularly the same. They're divergent. But when you take them together and you put them in the blender you should come up with something that works, so don't stonewall. Let's try to get there together.

Sitting on the sidelines, waiting for things to get better, is not the right thing to do and it's not what's going to work ultimately in solving these serious problems for Ontario and for its citizens. Increasing taxes, overburdening Ontarians and Ontario businesses to support the Liberal spending addiction is not the right thing to do. Hiring record numbers of government employees at the taxpayers' expense, and particularly now, is not the right way to manage the public purse.

Some 90% of whatever new jobs were recorded are concentrated in only two sectors: government and construction—public expenditures. Dalton McGuinty won't let Ontarians keep their money in their pockets, but seems to believe that he can treat it as if it were his own. At this point, that is an inappropriate approach to how to solve the problems of Ontario.

Since last year's election, public sector or government job growth is 3.4 times that of the private sector. The private sector grew by a scant 1%. The remaining job creation is all public sector, and we use that phrase a lot for those watching us on television—that means government. Do we need more government workers? Uninhibited government spending and job-crushing regulation are not the way to stimulate the economy. Taking more of Ontarians' hard-earned money, and notably now, from their pockets, is a method that has failed in the past, is failing Ontario now, and that is an approach that will always fail.

Instead of using high revenues to reduce the tax burden and provide relief for struggling families and businesses, Liberals are saddling future generations with growing debt. The money is just not out there. It would be, but you've got to spend money to make money, something that I learned, sometimes the hard way, when I was in small business myself. We're talking about stimulating small business, because small business really drives what we do here in Canada and here in Ontario.

For the sake of a correct perspective: McGuinty Liberals have increased government spending in five years by as much as the NDP government of Bob Rae and the Harris-Eves governments combined did over a decade. That is an absolutely astounding multiple. Liberals increased program spending by nearly 50% in five years. They thought, "The programs were needed; let's just say okay." But if so, did the revenue side create the ability to derive the funds? The answer is clear cut, and it is a no.

Liberal Premier David Peterson set records by increasing government spending by 45% in five years. That was the prior record—45% in five years. Clearly, the McGuinty team has chosen to follow in those footsteps and it didn't work for Peterson, so I have to ask the question: Why would it work now?

What fiscal policies are the Liberals following? Those that earned Ontario the dubious title of honorary member of the Third World due to its debt and spending habits? What exactly has been so successful about the so-called five-point plan that Premier McGuinty has implemented? That it deserves the support of the members of this House? The five-point plan that we all hear about every day: Rather than playing it back over and over and over, can anyone demonstrate its efficacy? Can anyone demonstrate its efficiency?

I can't decide if it's the lost retirement savings or the lost jobs; is it the spiralling real estate market with a 27% decline in housing starts in July or the small businesses going out of business? Is it the rising inflation or is it the drop in trade?

The value of Ontario exports fell by 12.9% in the first half of this year compared to the same period in 2007. We are not in the business, in Ontario, of making things for ourselves as much as we manufacture things for others. We make things in our manufacturing sector. We sell them and we sell them outside. A 12.9% drop is significant, to say the least. But you know, we're taking hits like everyone else and this trend is long-term. It has to be reversed. Is the rising unemployment rate or the 7.5% drop in manufacturing sales in the first half of this year also to blame?

What does it say about the governing abilities of this Liberal government when iconic Canadian companies like Gibbard Furniture Shops closed down? Gibbard Furniture Shops Ltd. survived two major fires and the Great Depression but it couldn't survive five years of Liberal government.

Small business is our economic backbone in Ontario. I spent 15 years as an owner-operator. Anybody listening to me who is in small business or has been in small business knows what I mean when I say, "the 5 o'clock sweats." That's waking up at 5 o'clock in the morning in a cold sweat and wondering what you're going to do today to stem the tide that's taking your business away from you and that's bringing you closer and closer to giving a bunch of pink slips to good people who have supported you and supported themselves well over many years.

What has this government done to make Canadian businesses competitive in a globalizing market that they admit is indeed just that? Retooling, retraining and economic redevelopment are not exercises. This is about people. It's about their livelihoods, it's about their kids and it's about their futures. How has this government made it easier for quality Ontario companies to compete on the international stage? How has the McGuinty government "planned" to empower Ontario's trademark companies to weather this economic storm? It hasn't, and that's why workers are leaving, my own two kids included, one by one.

I guess the Premier had better set aside some more time for interviews, because there will be a lot of Ontarians needing jobs before this is all over. So far, his only solution has been to hire employees, rather than create the environment where Ontarians can find well-paying jobs. Governments of all stripes in decades past got it; now we seem to have lost it.

How have they failed? Let me count the ways: insufficient margin of error for their budgets—they had to spend it to the limit and we're seeing the result. What's the status of the reserve? It's $750 million in 2008-09, $1 billion for 2009-10, in terms of balancing the budgets. They didn't look ahead enough to anticipate possible operating cost increases, like the jump in oil prices since the March 2008 budget.

I have a few seconds left, so I'll end the way I began. Let's try to make this more than an exercise. I've just thrown some food for thought into this debate, as all members are. Let's see if we can find a way to get ourselves out of the hole that keeps on being dug.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Further debate?

M me France Gélinas: It is my pleasure to rise and talk about the motion that was introduced last Wednesday by the Premier. Basically, this resolution finally acknowledges that Ontario is facing a serious crisis. I quote from the motion. The first line reads: "That the Legislative Assembly of Ontario acknowledges our province faces economic challenges." The McGuinty government has ignored the threat of a recession for some time now. Last December, when delivering his fall economic statement, the finance minister said, "The fundamentals of our economy are vital and strong." March—here we go again.

Last spring, when the asset-backed commercial paper mess was beginning to unravel and bank economists were lowering their expectations, the finance minister of Ontario stated: "The economy is fundamentally strong and resilient."

It goes on. The McGuinty government chose to ignore these looming problems and instead chose to use terms like "resilient" and "fundamentally strong" to get around debating what could be done to reverse the course. Well, "economics" and "strong fundamentals" are nice words, but when Ontarians are looking at the stock market, they are nervous. They have a sense of angst. We know that stock markets go up and down, but what's going on right now is different. It seems that every day, the world central banks take extraordinary actions to prevent the financial system from completely collapsing.

The Federal Reserve and the Bank of Canada have been pouring billions of dollars into the banking system to keep it afloat. In the United States and European countries, they have made commitments of trillions of dollars. This is a lot of zeroes. I've never seen a trillion dollars before, and most of us never will, but this is the size of the commitment that is needed to save the banking system in the States. They are nationalizing financial institutions in a desperate attempt to turn things around.

The stock market swings. We all know this. It is wild, it is unpredictable and seemingly irrational, but those swings worry people. Ontarians' savings are tied to the stock market. Whether we talk about our pension funds, mutual funds or retirement savings funds and so on, Ontarians are worried about their financial future, and they want their savings protected from these wild swings.

They are also concerned about their jobs. Stock market crashes and job losses tend to go hand in hand. We've already seen 230,000 manufacturing job losses in this province in the last five years, but Ontarians are concerned that the worst is yet to come. It could be way worse than 230,000 jobs lost. The financial and retail sectors here have so far been relatively unscathed by the lower growth. In the US, this has not been the case. Retailers and banks are laying off workers.

When Ontarians look to newspapers and television for reasons that the stock market has been acting this way, they are inundated by terms like "asset-backed commercial paper," "toxic mortgages," "default credit swaps." It is a complicated problem, but all signs point to a lack of regulation and oversight, which allows speculators to take excessive risk, and everyday taxpayers and citizens are now paying the consequences of those bad debts, I would call them.

Ontario has jurisdiction over securities regulation. We have argued through this debate that Ontario needs to take a more active approach in protecting and sustaining good jobs. Ontario also needs to take immediate steps to strengthen securities regulation. We need to prevent this from happening ever again.

We would like to offer a few solutions on securities reform. First, create a financial product safety commission, just like we have for consumer goods, as recommended by an economist. This would address the inventtion of new financial products that are not intended to manage risk, but those products are actually there to create risk. Second, ensure that regulators oversee areas of financials that are now unregulated. I like the quote from one economist who says that if it quacks like a bank, then you should regulate it like a bank.

This includes real regulation for hedge funds and large pools of capital that are able to manipulate markets for quick profit, therefore bringing those huge swings. Strengthen regulation that restricts leverage for all financial companies. Leverage is the portion of debt used in speculation and was one of the causes of the current crisis that we see. Deal with the conflicts of interest that are so much a part of our securities regulation system.

Organizations that regulate the mutual funds and investment dealer sectors police themselves, while also acting as a trade association in promoting themselves. This is a clear conflict of interest, and it has to stop. We've seen what self-regulation has done in other industries. Should I remind everybody of the big bang in a part of Toronto where the people were self-regulating the propane?

Obviously, these are just a few proposals, and we look forward to hearing more from the province and its Ontario Securities Commission, but we need to act now. We need to protect Ontarians' savings from more wild swings and we need to protect their jobs—the jobs that are being impacted by financial markets.

The manufacturing and research sector workers in this province have been witness to a recession for quite a few years now. They know that the economy in their community has not been fundamentally strong, like our Minister of Finance led us to believe. There's job crisis in Ontario's manufacturing and forestry heartland.

Since July of 2004, almost 230,000 Ontarians in the manufacturing sector have lost their jobs. That's a lot of people. Here are some examples: 430 jobs—that is 80% of their workforce—at DDM Plastics in Tillsonburg. In Niagara, 800 jobs were lost at John Deere in Welland, and a temporary layoff of 480 people at AbitibiBowater. Lost since June of 2004 are 100,000 manufacturing jobs right here in Toronto and 25,000 in Hamilton; as well, half of all of the manufacturing jobs in Thunder Bay have been lost. In addition to the 230,000 job losses in the manufacturing sector, there are more than 90,000 direct jobs in forest products; about 30,000 indirect jobs have already been lost.

I come from northern Ontario. If you look in parts of my riding where forestry used to be active, it has now collapsed. When we go around our riding, we can see all of the men and women who used to work in the forest and owned their own tools, trucks, equipment to do forestry work—it is now parked in the back of their yard collecting dust and rusting. This is not what I want for northern Ontario; this is not what I want for forestry.

I shouldn't have to tell people opposite how important manufacturing and resource jobs are to this province. These jobs are not just important because manufacturing jobs pay an average $2.50 more than the average hourly wage in Ontario; these jobs are not just important because, in addition to paying better wages, they come with good pensions and they come with good benefits. They used to come with security that allowed people to go on with their lives.

Workers who have lost those good jobs over the past few years would be stunned to know that it is only now that the McGuinty government is proposing a resolution acknowledging that, as I read at the beginning, the province faces significant economic challenges.

It is shocking, frankly, that it has taken the government of McGuinty so long to come to this conclusion. The good people in my riding have known this for many years now, since the equipment has been parked in the back of their yard, collecting dust and rust. Dalton McGuinty has pretended that the current job crisis is limited only to manufacturing and forestry, although they have been hard hit, but anyone who knows anything about the Ontario economy knows that manufacturing and resources represent the foundation on which Ontario's service economy rests.

The second-quarter economic accounts released by the Minister of Finance last week or the week before show that output from the manufacturing sector continues to decline. But the real news is that when you combine the reports from the first two quarters of this year, it becomes clear that the rest of the economy is no longer picking up the slack. We're ending up with declining output in many more sectors of the broader economy. In other words, job losses in previously what we used to call untouched sectors, like retail and financial services, may well be on the immediate horizon.

The TD Economics report last Tuesday forecast negative employment growth for 2009 for this province. The report reads, "Real GDP growth in Ontario is expected to barely advance in 2008 and 2009, placing it last amongst its peers." Dead last. "The lagging nature of employment in reflecting economic conditions leaves significant downside risks to the job market, especially since the manufacturing sector is expected to continue to bleed jobs and this will disproportionately hit" our "province."

The McGuinty government has heard from unemployed workers, seen the bad statistics and read report after report forecasting mega job losses. Now they acknowledge that trouble is on the horizon. What are they going to do about it? They have tabled a resolution reaffirming that their so-called five-point plan is working.

When confronted with real evidence that the plan is in fact not working, the McGuinty government's strategy is to proclaim in this House that it is actually working. Two hundred and twenty thousand manufacturing jobs have been lost in five years. "The plan is working." The forestry sector decline is wiping out towns in northern Ontario. "Don't worry. The plan is working." Reports show falling growth and serious job losses looming in other sectors. "Don't worry about that either. Our five-point plan is working." This resolution is a declaration of inaction.

The NDP has always been the party that puts working families first. We believe in a good job for everyone, because a good job is the best way to make sure that working women and men in this province share in the prosperity.

The NDP believes that government has a job to play: an active role in protecting good-paying jobs and, when those jobs can't be saved, in making sure that workers who have committed a lifetime to an employer are treated fairly and are given every opportunity to return to the labour force in comparable jobs.

The McGuinty government doesn't believe in an activist government. They have stood on the sidelines, showing absolutely no leadership, while factories and mills downsize and close, costing hundreds of thousands of workers their jobs. I repeat: 230,000 manufacturing jobs lost under McGuinty's watch. This is devastating. Tens of thousands of direct and indirect forestry jobs have disappeared on Dalton McGuinty's watch because, quite frankly, Liberals think that markets must always be the final arbiter of which jobs survive and which jobs disappear.

I'm here to tell you that the NDP doesn't see things that way. We believe that sometimes the market does work, but sometimes it doesn't. When it doesn't—and this is one of those times in Ontario's economic history when the market definitively is not working for the people of Ontario—then the government must step in on behalf of hard-working men and women of this province and set things right.

There are fundamental changes in the economy taking place that require innovative, activist government action now. Instead of putting real proposals on the table, McGuinty tables a resolution in this House saying that he is prepared to act to protect jobs in this province. He says that his five-point plan will support Ontario's workers through the gloomy economic forecast we hear about every day. But his five-point plan has failed to sustain manufacturing and resource jobs, so it sure won't do a thing to support jobs in other sectors that are next in line to get hit.

The NDP has tabled amendments to this resolution. We want a five-year guarantee of an industrial hydro rate so that Ontario manufacturing and resource companies can count on stable, competitive hydro policies at a time when competing jurisdictions have far lower industrial rates.

Second, we want a job protection commissioner to help at-risk companies overcome financial difficulty, with the goal of saving jobs. The commissioner will work with all parties to help out and save jobs.

We want a Buy Ontario policy that would ensure that streetcars, subways and buses continue to be made right here in Ontario, resulting in the protection of thousands of good-paying jobs for the people who build the parts and assemble those streetcars, buses and subways.

We want tougher plant closure legislation that would ensure that everything is done to prevent a profitable plant or mill from closing and, in addition, an enhanced mandated severance. When you look at those 230,000 jobs, a lot of them were in plants and in mills that were profitable right here in Ontario. Those companies were profitable, but it was in Ontario that it was the easiest to close them down, to move them elsewhere, motivated by greed and profit. They had no ties to Ontario. They had no ties to keep the people of Ontario's jobs. They moved them away for greed. Tougher plant closure legislation would ensure that everything is done to prevent this from happening again.

We also want expansion of severance eligibility and an increase in advance notice in mass layoff situations.

We want pension and wage protection that would make sure that workers get every penny they are owed from their employers when their company becomes insolvent or goes bankrupt. The workers should be first in line to get paid.

And finally: a refundable manufacturing and resource investment tax credit that would provide a real incentive for manufacturers and processors to invest in the building, equipment and machinery that leads to high-quality, good-paying jobs.

Those are just some of the constructive ideas we've put forward in our amendment. We are willing to talk about them one at a time and split the amendments if the government is really committed in saying that they want a dialogue to address what they call the economic challenges that the province is facing. If they want a dialogue, then have a look at the motion that we've put forward, have a look at every single one of those ideas, and let's discuss them.

Let's break up the motion and take it one point at a time so that the opposition has a chance to influence the policies that will make sure that the serious economic crisis that Ontario is going through will be addressed in a constructive way by all members of this House.

We look forward to this debate and hope that some of our points will be heard by this government.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Thank you. Pursuant to standing order 9(b), the debate is adjourned.

Debate deemed adjourned.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): This House stands in recess until 10:30.

The House recessed from 1012 to 1030.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Hon. Ted McMeekin: I'd like just to take a minute to introduce Jeff Neven, who is from my area. He has an interest in non-profit housing and is doing a field placement out of Wilfrid Laurier University with my office. Welcome, Jeff.

Mr. Khalil Ramal: I would like to stand up and introduce my friend and constituent Kathleen Keating from London. She's a social activist and community worker in the city of London.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Welcome.

With the new standing orders and introduction of guests, if the pages' members are not here, my intent is to introduce the pages' guests, and I will be continuing to introduce guests in the Speaker's gallery, but that will be the extent of the Speaker's introductions.

First, we'd like to welcome to the Speaker's gallery today the 2008-09 legislative interns: Tejas Aivalli—and joining him today is his mother, Suma, his father, Vijay, and his sister Gitanjali; we welcome them—Meghan Buckham; Igor Delov; David Donovan; Angela Hersey; Kim Hokan; Waqas Iqbal; Chelsea Peet; Emma Stanley-Cochrane—joining Emma today are her father, Michael, and her mother, Marilyn Stanley—and Rosanne Waters. Would all members please join me in welcoming our interns.

As well, on behalf of page Jasmine Douglas, her mother, Lesley, and her father, Martin—they'll be sitting in the public galleries today; on behalf of page Michael Ralphs, his mother, Joan; and on behalf of page Timothy Fuke, his mother, Oksana Fuke, and his aunt Sonia Solomon in the east public gallery. Welcome today as well.

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I just want to take this opportunity to ask all members to join me in saying thank you to our pages. Today is their last day of service here at Queen's Park. We thank you for everything you have done and we wish you all the best in your future endeavours.

ORAL QUESTIONS

ONTARIO ECONOMY

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: My first question is for the Premier and it has to do with his government's economic planning. On top of watching their savings suffer a daily beating on the financial markets over the last few weeks, today Ontarians woke up to learn that they're going to have to pay an additional 12% for hydro. You're asking people to tighten their belts and find savings; at the same time you're asking them to pay this whopping increase in their hydro bills. You and your colleagues have created this mess and now you're asking taxpayers to clean it up for you.

Premier, what are you going to do to take responsibility for what you've created and what relief will you provide to struggling families in next week's economic statement?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Energy and Infrastructure.

Hon. George Smitherman: I want to say in response to the question by the honourable member that the information that he puts forward is not accurate. The people of the province of Ontario will not be experiencing rate increases at the level that the honourable member has speculated. A typical user of electricity in the province of Ontario, around 1,000 kilowatt hours a month, would experience an increase of about $2.40. We don't minimize that that has an impact for individuals.

That's why we've been working aggressively through local distribution companies to assist people to lower their energy use through conservation initiatives. This is part and parcel of a renaissance of the energy system which sees a wide array of new providers being brought into the mix with cleaner, greener fuels—part of the investment in creating jobs and part of the investment that they did not have the courage to make.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary.

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: I think most hard-working Ontarians and seniors who are worried about their pensions wouldn't call this a renaissance; they'd call it a kick in the shins while times are tough and challenging. This massive hydro increase today comes on the heels of the tax hikes that families and seniors are facing because of spikes in their property assessments. We know that tax increases are going to flow from that.

Again, this government is asking people to review their budgets and find savings while at the same time finding extra money to pay for increased hydro and increased property taxes. You knew, or at least should have known, months ago that the freeze on property assessments would end at the same time an economic downturn would hit Ontario. We were already in it last spring. You've allowed Ontarians to be hit by this double whammy just when they can afford it the least. You've allowed struggling businesses to have their costs go even higher just when their jobs are in jeopardy. What are you going to do to get us out of this mess that you have created?

Hon. George Smitherman: To the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

Hon. Jim Watson: Well, I find it a little rich coming from that side of the House talking about a mess created out of the property assessments.

Interjection.

Hon. Jim Watson: Let me quote the honourable member who is heckling me. From the St. Catharines Standard: Hudak acknowledged the problem as "an unexpected result of the legislation his fellow Conservatives pushed through under then-Premier Mike Harris." That's number one. Secondly, the member from Renfrew: Asked if the former government under Mike Harris bungled the property evaluation system, Yakabuski said, "Apparently so."

We understand the challenges when it comes to the property assessment system. We've implemented all of the recommendations of the Ombudsman, number one. The Ombudsman has praised this government for taking decisive action. Your government took eight kicks at the can and made a mess of the system. We fixed your problems.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Final supplementary.

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: Boy, have you fixed it. What a feeble and embarrassing response. You've got a double whammy of property tax and hydro increases, which smacks of either really poor planning or a government that just doesn't care about what struggling families in this province are going through today.

The finance minister said this morning that he plans to consult widely and involve as many people as possible in decision-making going forward. Well, given the mess that he's put Ontario families in today with this double whammy, he's clearly going to need it. So will the Premier come forward—I would like to see him do it today—and support our idea for a select committee on the economy involving all parties in a non-partisan approach to these challenges, consult widely, and develop an economic recovery plan that involves every member of this Legislature? Are you going to stand up today and say, "I will do just that"?

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Minister?

Hon. Jim Watson: To the Premier.

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I like the idea, and that's why we are in effect doing that. There is a Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs. That committee will travel, as recommended by my colleague. That committee has all-party representation. That committee will report to this House. And the fundamental responsibility of that committee is to seek out new ideas and to consult Ontarians. So such a committee does exist, such a committee will shortly begin its work, and such a committee will take advantage of all ideas put forward by the people of Ontario.

But let me say this: We are beyond any shadow of a doubt in challenging economic times, and we will do as a government what Ontario families do in their homes. We will carefully assess our options, we will protect those priorities that are important for all of us, and we will move forward in a way that is prudent, thoughtful and responsible. And if necessary, we will delay the implementation of new programs and new initiatives.

GOVERNMENT SPENDING

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: Again to the Premier: We know that the partisan nature of standing committees in this Legislature has been shameful, from a Premier who said he was going to change the way that committees worked in this Legislature. They are simply there to echo the directions given by the Premier's office.

I want to ask the Premier again about his plea to Ontarians to review their budgets, tighten their belts and find savings. Premier, you've increased the number of public sector jobs by 43,000 just in the last year. All those jobs have to be paid for by taxpayer dollars, which we know this government has less and less of. Premier, if people are having to tighten their budgets, what are you doing to tighten your spending on public sector jobs? Will next week's economic statement include a hiring and wage freeze in the public sector?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I know this is a recurring theme coming from my Conservative colleagues. They say that we should not have hired more nurses; we should not have hired more teachers; we should not have hired those additional water inspectors, those additional meat inspectors, those additional police officers. We see that as part of our responsibility to deliver to the people of Ontario good-quality public services. We feel that our families have a right to be able to count on those kinds of services being there for them. So no, we will not apologize for making those investments in those services which families have a right to be able to count on.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary.

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: I guess I'd suggest a huge deficit and a ballooning debt for future generations of Ontarians.

Just as families are being asked by the Premier to trim their budgets, the Prime Minister has announced that he will be conducting a review of each and every ministry to find efficiencies in savings. You said in your last budget that you'd find a billion dollars in savings to balance the budget. We've seen no evidence of that so far; we've asked the Minister of Finance.

Premier, are you prepared to lead by example, look to your own House before you ask Ontarians to trim their own household budgets and pay for whopping hydro and property tax increases? Will you commit to reviewing each ministry's budget to find efficiencies in savings and point them out to us in next week's economic statement?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I want to assure my honourable colleague that this is part of an ongoing effort on the part are of our government. Those kinds of savings and demonstrations of restraint have been made in the past, and I fully expect that they'll be made again in the future.

A couple of facts when it comes to Ontario and public servants: We have the lowest number of public service employees per capita in the country; that's a fact. We have, according to independent, outside sources, the second-most efficient public service in the country. It's a fact that we're running it at 34% better, in terms of cost, than the average here in Canada. So again, there's always a responsibility on all of us to look for savings and to demonstrate restraint, but from an objective perspective I think we're doing fairly well in comparison to the rest of the country.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Final supplementary.

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: According to statistics, Ontario has hired more public sector employees in the last year than all other provinces combined. That certainly shows a lack of foresight.

Premier, we warned this government about its bloated public sector last April when the sunshine list showed a 27% increase in the number of public sector employees earning over $100,000 a year. They won't be the people struggling to pay a 12% increase in their hydro bills or a 20% jump in their property taxes; it's the average Ontario family, worried about their jobs, their mortgages, their savings; seniors worried about their pensions. That's what your government should be focusing on.

To the Premier: I want to ask him, will you again strike a select committee on the economy, a non-partisan committee, that will work with all members of this House to find solutions to the mess that you and your government colleagues have created?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I can't agree with the honourable member in terms of his characterization of the source of the challenge before Ontarians, Canadians, and the western world. I think that Ontarians would understand that there are some pretty powerful, global economic winds that are blowing out there.

My friend opposite tells us again that he's unhappy with the investments we made in more public servants and he says in particular he's concerned about seniors. Well, I think seniors would be unhappy to learn about any decision on our part to lay off nurses as my friend would suggest. I don't think they would want to us lay off MRI and CT technologists. They wouldn't want to us to lay off personal support workers in our long-term-care homes. They would not want us to lay off home care workers. They would not want us to lay off public health unit inspectors—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you, Premier. New question.

MANUFACTURING AND

FORESTRY SECTOR JOBS

Mr. Howard Hampton: My question is for the Premier. Despite the fact that the McGuinty government repeats over and over again that it has a five-point plan to sustain jobs in Ontario, the track record is very sad: 230,000 manufacturing jobs gone, 40,000 direct and indirect forest sector jobs gone, while the government continues to talk.

New Democrats have put forward seven proposals to help sustain jobs and help workers in Ontario. A reasonable industrial hydro rate, refundable manufacturing investment tax credit, tougher plant closure legislation and better severance provisions are just a few of the solutions we've offered.

Will the Premier commit in next week's fall economic statement to implementing some of these solutions which we've offered to help sustain jobs in Ontario?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: We are open to thoughtful proposals put forward from any corner, regardless of political stripe. We will give due consideration to any proposal which we believe will provide support to the Ontario economy and to our families in particular.

Again, I just can't agree with my friend's characterization that somehow these job losses—and they are real, and they weigh heavily on families, obviously, that have been caught up in this economic dislocation—flow exclusively from policies put forward by our government. Again, I believe Ontario families would agree with me in that regard.

But the point I want to make is that we are very much open to any thoughtful proposals that will help our families get through this challenging economic time.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Howard Hampton: Well, the Premier has used this language of "very much open" before. When my colleague from Hamilton East—Stoney Creek put forward the idea of better severance provisions, the Premier said, "We're open to this," but three months later when asked the direct question, he said, "No, we're not going to do this." So we've heard this language of "We're open to."

What I'm asking for—and I'm going to be very clear on this—is a commitment on the part of the McGuinty government to actually start doing something to help sustain jobs in this province and help workers who have lost their jobs. Just for example, the Premier continues to talk, but while he's talking, 1,300 more workers are out of a job in St. Thomas, 800 more workers out of a job in Welland, 500 more workers out of a job in Goderich, with more to follow.

I ask the Premier again: Will you commit to implementing some of these measures which I have put forward in the economic—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. Premier?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: The commitment that I've made is to carefully consider any thoughtful proposals that we think will work for Ontario families. What the leader of the NDP is suggesting is that I exchange my plan for his. I'm not prepared to do that.

Just to remind him about some of the reality of this place, I think it was just last week the Minister of Finance rose beside me and thanked the member for Beaches—East York for proposals that he has put forward with respect to changing our tax treatment of granny flats. The member from Beaches—East York was right, we've adopted his approach, and we've made the change accordingly.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Final supplementary.

Mr. Howard Hampton: What does that have to do with the thousands of good jobs that are being destroyed across Ontario while the McGuinty government talks about their 15,000-name electronic petition?

We're talking about action here to sustain jobs. There is a crisis happening in Ontario. People who have worked hard all their lives, who have contributed to the community, paid their taxes, are losing their jobs by the thousands. They look to the McGuinty government for a response, and all they hear are empty words.

Some of the workers who were laid off at St. Thomas said this: "I don't think they are paying attention. St. Thomas manufacturing is going." Some of the workers in Welland: "Our hometown is dying." What they're asking for is some action from the McGuinty government.

Are you prepared to implement these proposals or are we simply going to hear more empty words from the McGuinty government?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: When it comes to thoughtful proposals, we've heard from the best thinkers on these kinds of things for a long time now, that when it comes to dealing with the manufacturing challenges being faced not only here in Ontario and the rest of Canada but in the US, the UK, Australia and other parts, you've got to invest in the skills and education of your workers. That's why four years ago we put out our Reaching Higher plan, which is a massive $6.2-billion investment in our workers.

As well, we've heard that you've got to help companies invest in the latest equipment and technologies, which is why we have our advanced manufacturing investment strategy in place.

We've heard that you've got to help them adopt new ideas earlier, help find a way to commercialize those new ideas. That's why a number of years ago we developed the Ministry of Research and Innovation, and during the last three years we've put over $1.5 billion into over 1,000 ideas. Those are good, solid ideas. We've known about these for a long time. These are not johnny-come-lately proposals. We've been on this for a long time and we'll continue to—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you, Premier. New question.

Mr. Howard Hampton: To the Premier: You mentioned post-secondary funding—again, empty words. Where does Ontario rank in terms of post-secondary funding in Canada? Tenth out of 10.

HYDRO RATES

Mr. Howard Hampton: I want to ask the Premier now about hydro rates, because as thousands of workers lose their jobs, the McGuinty government wants to jack up how much people have to pay each month simply to heat and light their homes. Why? Because Ontario Power Generation is demanding a 15% increase for electricity, for the most part produced by their nuclear plants.

The Minister of Energy described nuclear power in this House yesterday as affordable and reliable. If nuclear power is so affordable, why do we see this surprise rate increase needed to finance nuclear plants?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Energy and Infrastructure.

Hon. George Smitherman: As I had a chance a minute ago to say to the leader of the official opposition, a variety of factors contribute to the increases that are being felt with respect to electricity prices in the province of Ontario. We acknowledge that this is a challenging circumstance for households.

For the typical user of about 1,000 kilowatt hours a month, this is approximately a $2.40 increase, to be attributed to a variety of factors which certainly include bringing onto line more renewable energy in Ontario.

It's just not right for the honourable member to stand and try to lay this on his ideological hobby horse. We have an energy supply in Ontario, 75% of which comes from nuclear in Niagara Falls, and we're seeing an increase in other forms of renewables, which are part and parcel of the price increase that consumers will feel, and we're giving them better tools with respect to conservation to help assuage those impacts.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Howard Hampton: The minister can prattle on, but it's very clear: The Ontario Energy Board said yesterday, "The new rate partly accounts for Ontario Power Generation's request to get paid 14.8% more for the electricity it generates from its regulated nuclear and hydroelectric power plants...." So most of this is on account of the costs of nuclear. And get this: It doesn't cover the major refurbishments of reactors, nor the building of new reactors proposed by the McGuinty government. This is just about keeping the nuclear fleet running.

Minister, Moody's Investor Service said in May that the power from new nuclear plants will cost 15 cents a kilowatt hour, a price which the Ontario Power Authority acknowledges would make nuclear power uneconomic. Why does the McGuinty government insist on going down the road of "go nuclear, go big" when it's clear this is going to be very expensive power, more expensive than—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. Minister?

Hon. George Smitherman: It's fine, I suppose, for the honourable member to come to this House and pretend that Ontario is moving in a direction with respect to nuclear, but the reality is that it has been our past and it is our present, and we seek to ensure that our fleet of nuclear reactors is able to perform on par with the way they have for a couple of decades in the province of Ontario.

I think it's noteworthy that in the honourable member's presentation, when he quoted from the Ontario Energy Board, he said—their words—"partly accounts," but within 10 seconds, he said "most of this." This is where he gets a bit carried away with himself.

The costs that are being borne here by individuals, which we recognize are challenging, come from a variety of factors. But alongside them is an increase in the amount of money that we're paying to help support these very individuals through enhanced conservation initiatives.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Final supplementary?

Mr. Howard Hampton: The only people in Ontario who are getting carried away are the McGuinty government, and all you have to look at, all you have to examine are the pennies that are going towards conservation and renewable energy and the multi-billions that the McGuinty government will spend on nuclear power. It's pennies for conservation, pennies for alternative energy and multi-billions for nuclear power.

But what's even worse is, you want to push this through while delaying the integrated power supply plan hearings. In other words, you want to delay the very hearings that are supposed to look at what are the ins and outs, the ups and downs of energy supply for Ontario, while you push forward the nuclear stuff.

I ask this of the Premier: You're putting the cart before the horse. You're launching the nuclear strategy before you sit down and look at what we ought to be doing from stage one. Will you reverse this? Will you complete the integrated power supply hearings before—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. Minister?

Hon. George Smitherman: The honourable member obviously counts pennies differently than the people of the province of Ontario, because I think one of the things in the backgrounder, which has been publicly available to the member, says that Ontario Power Authority spending on conservation and contracts for gas-fired and renewable generation is forecast to increase by about $25 million a month. This is not pennies; this is a substantial contribution. This brings to life four new gas-fired plants—an important, crucial element in transitioning off coal.

Under the standard offer program, this provides for 524 megawatts of wind, 54 megawatts of hydroelectric and biomass, and 264 megawatts of photovoltaics, of solar.

These are examples, poignant examples, for the people of the province of Ontario of the transition from coal, that at the same time support them in their efforts to reduce the use of energy on the part of all of us—an important balance for the climate and—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you, Minister. New question.

EMPLOYMENT SUPPORTS

Mr. Frank Klees: To the Premier: In response to questions concerning the loss of manufacturing jobs in communities across this province, the Premier and his ministers continue to cite government programs as their response to job losses and stress in our communities. While the announcement of these programs held out great hope for businesses, what we're learning now is that they're very short on delivery.

I would ask the Premier, would he direct his ministers to table with the House a list of all of the programs, a list of the applications that were made for those programs, a list of the approved applications and a list of the funding that has actually been disbursed to businesses in the province?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Economic Development.

Hon. Michael Bryant: I say to the member, the gist of his question is, as the government is investing these dollars either by way of grants or loans, is it being done in a timely fashion? Is it being done within the 45-day commitment that has been made? Keeping in mind that within the 45 days there are opportunities for the applicant to provide more information—the applicant's going to want to obviously put the best application forward, so in some cases, different information and more information will be needed. In fact, the applicant works with the government in order to reach that time limit.

I can say to the member that the time limits have, in fact, been met, and I certainly have not, although I'm happy to work with the member, dealt yet with a company—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you, Minister. Supplementary?

Mr. Frank Klees: The minister did not get the gist of my question at all, so I'll go back to the Premier and I will ask the Premier once again, will the Premier direct the minister to give us this information? It's very simple: a list of the number of companies who have applied, a list of the number of companies that have in fact been approved and a list of the number of companies who have actually received funds. It's very simple. It's a matter of transparency and accountability, and I would ask once again, will that information be tabled with the Legislature so that we can in fact see what's going on with these programs?

Interjection: It's a short list.

Hon. Michael Bryant: Of course. All of this information is tabled in public accounts. But I say to the member who said it's a short list—short list? Excuse me? One hundred and fourteen new jobs; 900 sustained jobs; a five-year, $1.15-billion investment through the Next Generation of Jobs Fund; a half-a-billion-dollar investment through the advanced manufacturing strategy; nearly 4,000 jobs sustained or created—that's not a small list.

In fact, the gist of the member's question is to try and somehow play "gotcha" with the government's efforts to make investments that create jobs. The member does not have an alternative other than tax cuts, I suppose; the member does not suggest that we in fact should be putting the money into different companies; the member is trying to play "gotcha." My response to the member is, you're right: The public accounts will in fact be able to answer your "gotcha" question, but at the end of the day, we're focused on getting jobs for—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you, Minister. New question.

POVERTY

Mr. Michael Prue: My question is for the Premier. Mr. Premier, tomorrow is the United Nations International Day for the Eradication of Poverty. Ontarians across the length and breadth of this province will be calling for action to end poverty here. We are worried that this government's promise to reduce poverty is being put on hold. Yesterday the Premier said in this Legislature, "We'll delay new undertakings," and also said, "There will be no undue expenditures." Will the Premier tell Ontarians right now that his government will, as promised, commit significant new investments to reduce poverty in the upcoming economic statement?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: The member opposite is nothing if not tenacious on this issue, and I respect that.

We've obviously got to carefully consider the kinds of new investments and new initiatives that we will undertake on the part of Ontarians. He knows, as well, that we've been doing a lot of work on the poverty front. We've met with many Ontarians and received many good ideas and some solid recommendations. We look forward to making a significant announcement in December, in keeping with our original commitment.

Obviously, we will take into account our financial circumstances, but as I said before, I am absolutely committed to laying a solid foundation for progress in a way that has not been experienced before in the province of Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Michael Prue: Mr. Premier, Ontarians will be coming together tomorrow in Bracebridge, Cambridge, Cobourg, Cornwall, Kingston, Newmarket, Ottawa, Owen Sound, Sarnia, Windsor and here at Queen's Park to urge your government to include concrete measures to reduce poverty in the upcoming budget.

I will be joining the participants here at Queen's Park. My question to you is simple: Will you commit now to be present at the vigil and to personally reassure participants that the next economic statement and next budget will indeed include significant new, concrete measures to reduce poverty?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I think I've indicated a number of times, both in this Legislature and outside, our continuing strong commitment to make progress on this front.

But let me tell you: We're not waiting until December to launch any efforts when it comes to addressing poverty. We already have in place the Ontario child benefit, with monthly benefits now flowing to families, which will support 1.3 million Ontario children. We've raised the minimum wage a number of times now. We have raised the social assistance rates. We've invested more in affordable housing. We're putting in place a new dental program. We have doubled the funding for our student nutrition program for children who are coming to school hungry.

Those are the kinds of programs that we have put in place; those are the kinds of programs that we continue to support. We look forward to building on that with our announcement in December.

GREENBELT

Ms. Helena Jaczek: My question is for the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Earlier this month I was invited by Ontario Nature and the Oak Ridges Trail Association to a special event in Palgrave celebrating a new link from the Oak Ridges Trail to the Bruce Trail. A reporter attending the occasion wrote an

article published in the National Post some days later, decrying a new housing development that he said was occurring in the greenbelt. "There, by the road, a bulldozer was pawing away, cutting a hole in a hillside, next to a sign announcing 'Estate Homes.'" The author went on to say, "This spot is in the heart of the greenbelt."

Minister, this government was supposed to protect 1.8 million acres of green space, many of which are in my riding. What assurance can you give to my constituents, who want to ensure that this land is truly protected?

Hon. Jim Watson: I want to thank the honourable member from Oak Ridges—Markham, who is one of the great defenders of the greenbelt, because not only does it affect her community but she understands the importance from an economic and environmental point of view, so I thank her very much.

There are specific rural settlement areas and urban areas within the greenbelt that allow for some growth for existing communities. The area the author was talking about is one of the small rural areas in the town of Caledon that's allowed to have some limited development. However, this particular area that the author was referring to is not part of the 1.8 million acres of protected space under the greenbelt.

I know that the Conservative Party, who voted against the greenbelt, are jealous that this is a greenbelt that is recognized around the world as probably the most effective greenbelt. Let me quote the Canadian Institute for Environmental Law and Policy: "Ontario's greenbelt is positioned to be the most successful and most useful greenbelt"—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you, Minister. Supplementary?

Ms. Helena Jaczek: Thank you for clearing this matter up, and it is a relief to know that this government remains committed to protecting green space in Ontario. But these developments in rural areas within the greenbelt need to move forward with caution. As you know, there are valuable agricultural and water resources in the greenbelt, and development must not deteriorate these resources. In my riding, I know my constituents want their communities to grow, but they want them to grow in a sustainable way.

They want to ensure that their communities remain safe, healthy places to live for their children and grandchildren. Minister, how are you ensuring that development doesn't get out of hand in my riding?

Hon. Jim Watson: When specific applications are submitted in rural settlement areas not in the greenbelt itself, they need to conform to the environmental policies laid out in the Oak Ridges conservation plan. Let me just give you three examples of what we're doing to protect this precious green space: ensuring that the development does not affect groundwater and aquifer resources in the area; ensuring that the natural terrain and topography of the area is maintained as best as possible; and no development within the environmental features such as woodlots or wetlands.

Premier McGuinty made a commitment that we wanted to grow the greenbelt, that we're not interested in developing on the greenbelt, and we have lived up to that commitment. We consulted the municipal sector and environmental groups and landowners throughout the province of Ontario, and over 300 delegations came forward. We just announced a few months ago that we have released the criteria for the expansion of the greenbelt. Municipalities now can apply to expand the greenbelt within their jurisdictions. This is great news for the economy, great news for the environment and great news for the people of Ontario.

VIOLENT CRIME

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: My question is for the Attorney General. I think we all are very much aware of the tragic murders of two women in Toronto and the fact that the individual charged with those murders was on bail, awaiting trial for two violent sexual assaults with a blunt object. I'm quoting from Joe Warmington's column in the Toronto Sun, where Joe says, "We cannot allow the outrageous slayings of Saramma and Susan to be forgotten because these are the names of two women who did not have to die." That's a view I think most Ontarians would share. Minister, can you tell us if the crown appealed the bail decision, and if not, why not?

Hon. Christopher Bentley: All of our thoughts are with the families, the relatives and the community. We're all part of a community that was affected by these terrible tragedies. My friend will appreciate that I don't want to comment to too great an extent on an ongoing proceeding. There is a proceeding before the court.

With respect to the question of release, I can say the following: that in cases of violent offences, serious offences, the crown opposes release; in cases of serious, they always oppose release. This was a case where the accused had been detained initially—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you, Minister. Supplementary?

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: I certainly hope the minister has more to say in the supplementary, because I asked him a specific question about appeal to the Superior Court on the bail release decision. He didn't answer that in the initial question response.

This is a serious question related to confidence in the justice system in this province. We're told this individual was released on a $10,000 bond with no deposit. One of the conditions when you look at a bail release is the likelihood of committing further offences. We're also told there's a history of breach of court orders with this particular individual. This is bringing the administration of justice, I would suggest, into disrepute. That's another condition that the judge should be considering when making a release decision.

Minister, by not answering my question you're contributing to the concern about the system and whether it's actually protecting Ontarians in this province. Again I ask you, did you appeal to the—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. Minister?

Hon. Christopher Bentley: As my colleague would know, decisions on release are either made by a justice of the peace or, in this case, a judge. Once there's been an initial decision by a justice of the peace, a review of that decision has to be to a judge. That the review was brought after further legal proceedings—let's just say that the judge made an independent decision. The crown, in serious cases, always takes the position that public safety is always paramount in any case and starts at the position in serious cases to oppose release—and that decision was made independently by a judge in the proceeding my colleague is referring to.

CHILD CARE

Mr. Paul Miller: My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services. This summer, the McGuinty Liberals rewrote the temporary care assistance program rules cutting off grandparents raising their grandchildren from much-needed financial support. Adding insult to injury, the minister suggested grandparents could just apply for welfare. Her response reminds me of Marie Antoinette's statement, "Let them eat cake."

When will the McGuinty Liberals reverse the changes to the temporary assistance program by reinstating today all grandparents raising their at-risk grandchildren?

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: I thank the member from the third party for his question. First of all, let me say that we appreciate grandparents taking care of their grandchildren who are in difficulty, but I want to correct what the member is saying. There was no rule change.

Mr. Paul Miller: Yes, there was.

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: This member came to me because the application of the TCA was different across the province. We reviewed it, and he was right. So there was no directive change. There was no rule change. But we were asking municipalities to apply the temporary care allowance rule as it should be. That's what happened.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Paul Miller: I'll be more than happy to show the minister the rule changes.

The minister suggested that these grandparents take their needs to the Liberals' poverty reduction review. What this government has reduced in funding for these grandparents—the only action that has been taken is to push these grandparents further into poverty.

The minister's complete misunderstanding of this issue and her callous disregard for the plight of these grandparents shows that she is out of touch with her ministry's clients. Why would this minister even suggest putting more people on the welfare system?

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: First of all, this minister worked to make sure that the Ontario child benefit became a benefit in Ontario, and we know that a lot of children are benefiting from this Ontario child benefit.

The question is, if grandparents are in financial difficulty, these grandparents are like anyone in Ontario who has financial difficulty. They are entitled to Ontario Works. That was a comment that I made if they are in difficulty. But the children are receiving—and this program is not income-tested. That means that grandparents who are receiving temporary care assistance can have very good incomes.

ONTARIO FILM AND

TELEVISION INDUSTRY

Ms. Sophia Aggelonitis: My question is to the Minister of Culture. Ontario's film and television industry is an important economic contributor to our province. The film and television industry generates about $2 billion to our economy and creates nearly 12,600 jobs here in Ontario. To ensure that Ontario continues to produce talented film producers, directors and new media developers, we must invest in training institutions to support this important economic sector.

Mr. Speaker, through you, can the Minister of Culture tell this House what the government is doing to help support film and television training institutions?

Hon. M. Aileen Carroll: I thank my colleague from Hamilton Mountain, who is a wonderful supporter of arts and culture, especially now that Hamilton is my second-favourite city.

The McGuinty government has understood for a very long time what investing in our film and media training institutions means to our economy. By investing in those film training institutions, we're creating the conditions that are necessary to attract production and have companies come and film in Ontario. It also means that Ontario will be able to compete globally in an increasingly competitive TV and film industry. That's why I was very happy to announce during the Toronto International Film Festival that this government invested $2.5 million to improve the facilities of the Canadian Film Centre.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary.

Ms. Sophia Aggelonitis: I'm pleased to hear that the government is investing in institutions that train and prepare Ontarians for the rapidly expanding industry. Investments in the Canadian Film Centre will continue to help produce top-rated industry workers and perhaps the next Norman Jewison or Ivan Reitman.

Minister, you mentioned that the film industry is becoming increasingly competitive—certainly. Ontario needs to do more to attract film productions to our province—and to Hamilton. Mr. Speaker, through you, can the Minister of Culture tell this House what the government is doing to support the industry and attract productions to film here in Ontario?

Hon. M. Aileen Carroll: I thank my very knowledgeable colleague for yet another brilliant question. She's dead on the money as ever, because it isn't enough to just invest in our wonderful training facilities, as we have done, one of them in question being the Canadian Film Centre, but it's also very important to be part of a government, as I am with Mr. McGuinty and Mr. Duncan, who understand only too well that we need to compete. One of the ways we need to compete is by our tax credit system.

That's why the tax credit enhancements were increased from 30 to 35 for our domestic productions and from 18 to 25 for foreign. This province has the right combination of home-grown talent, technical expertise, facilities and financial incentives to best position our province in all our cities and all of our towns as a key film production centre.

HOSPITAL SERVICES

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: My question is for the Premier. Halton Healthcare is in a dire situation. Despite the growth in Milton and Oakville—a growth that has been mandated by our government through Places to Grow—our hospital projects are stalled. The chair of Halton region has tried to contact the Minister of Health for an appointment, but has been passed along the bureaucratic line and treated like a nuisance. Premier, this problem is not going away. Milton and Oakville continue to grow; in fact, it's getting worse. You have given us no indication that you care, and your health minister won't talk to our municipal leaders. Why are you treating the people of Halton like second-class citizens,

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Energy and Infrastructure.

Hon. George Smitherman: I do want to say to the honourable member that there is extraordinary awareness in our government about the growth that's occurring in Halton region, and obviously the growth plan is part of what addresses that. What's a little bit discouraging is that the honourable member, in asking such a question, doesn't acknowledge that it's his own party's plan to cut health care spending by $3 billion, which would negate not only the construction of new hospitals, but most seriously impair the operation of existing ones.

In the case of Halton Healthcare and the Oakville Trafalgar site, it's still our government's plan—with the community—to invest hundreds of millions of dollars in the construction of a new facility. There is some short delay in moving forward with that project, which is related to construction capacity in the province of Ontario. As Minister of Infrastructure, I can assure the honourable member that project is still very much in our government's sights. We desire to make it happen with the good people of Halton, as we recognize their needs must be met.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: The minister knows full well that it's not our plan to take anything out of health care.

I go back to the Premier—

Interjections.

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: —when the children come to order, Speaker.

Premier, the Halton regional council meets on Wednesday, October 29. Will you give your assurances that the Minister of Health will meet with the chair of Halton, as per his request, before that date so that he can properly inform his council of the hospital situation in Halton? Will you do that, Premier?

Hon. George Smitherman: I can't commit to a meeting on behalf of my colleague. As it is a matter of infrastructure, if it's of any assistance to the yelling honourable member across the way, I'd be very, very happy to meet with the regional chairman. That would give me an appropriate opportunity, on behalf of our government, to restate what is obvious to most.

As we've transferred the land without cost to the community, and as we've spent more than $10 million on planning a new hospital, and as it continues to be in our government's infrastructure plan, I'd be very happy to convey very directly to the members of Halton, to the regional chair, our government's commitment to moving forward with this project. At the same time, I'll remind him that the official opposition here at Queen's Park promises nothing but to cut health care spending by $3 billion.

ELEMENTARY TEACHERS

Mr. Rosario Marchese: I have a question for the Minister of Education.

Minister, teacher-librarians in elementary schools lead to a love of reading. Design and tech programs in grades 7 and 8 will help produce the skilled labour that Ontario needs. Having our students jump up and down in the classroom for 20 minutes a day is no substitute for qualified physical education instructors in elementary schools. Your refusal to provide these things, amongst other things, has led to an impasse with the elementary teachers of Ontario.

Will the minister sit down with the elementary teachers to resume negotiations, establish peace and stability, and provide our students with the programs they need?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Our door is open to that conversation, and the elementary teachers of Ontario know that. We have been in conversation with the federations and unions in the province since last December. In fact, we have more than 34 local agreements that have been either ratified or tentatively agreed to already. There are framework agreements with all but two of our federations in the province. So the relationship between this government and education employees in the province is very, very solid. I am absolutely convinced that the elementary teachers will come back and continue the provincial discussion with us. As I've said, our door has been and remains open to that conversation.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Rosario Marchese: The reality, Minister, is the following: You are imposing a framework for settlement on teachers that they did not negotiate. While the minister is prepared to settle for peace and stability, the teachers want peace, stability, and quality. When will the minister put excellence ahead of expediency and begin free and open collective bargaining with the Elementary Teachers' Federation of Ontario?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: We have been explicit in our expression of support for the collective bargaining process. The provincial discussion that has been put in place follows on a conversation that happened five years ago and led to four years of peace and stability, which led to the ability of teachers and support workers in our system to get on with the business of providing service to our kids, improving their professional development opportunities—all things that could not happen when there was such a bad working relationship with the previous government. So excellence is exactly what has ensued from the fact that we've had such a good working relationship.

We are open to this conversation with the elementary teachers of Ontario. I look forward to the conversation. I am convinced that the offer that is on the table and the provisions that are there are fair, they're reasonable, and I look forward to having that conversation with the elementary teachers.

GREAT LAKES

Mr. Michael A. Brown: I have a question for the Minister of Natural Resources.

Minister, the Great Lakes are one of the crown jewels of Ontario's natural heritage. I'm pleased to represent roughly half of the north shore of Lake Superior and all of the north shore of Lake Huron. They provide us with drinking water and food. They are a source of recreation. They are a gateway to Ontario's economic prosperity.

For the people in my riding, healthy water levels are a critical component for vibrant tourism, but they need strong representation to ensure that they prosper. A lack of political will could bring us back to the darker days when, for example, Lake Erie was deteriorating. Would the minister tell the House what Ontario is doing to keep the Great Lakes great?

Hon. Donna H. Cansfield: I'd like to thank the member from Algoma—Manitoulin for his question and his constant raising of this profile, because Manitoulin has so many freshwater lakes.

The Great Lakes contain 20% of the world's surface water and 95% of North America's surface water, so their health is absolutely critical to the well-being of our ecological system. We must do, and we are doing, everything we possibly can to ensure their monitoring.

Climate change has had a significant impact. The Great Lakes are glacier lakes, so precipitation is critical, but evaporation can do a great deal as well, as it lowers those levels, and we've had some indication of this. We've been working with the International Joint Commission, we're monitoring the lake, we're working to see what we can do—and you're right, Lake Erie is a good example. It's the world's largest commercial freshwater fishery, and it's due to—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. Supplementary?

Mr. Michael A. Brown: As you know, Ontario shares the jurisdiction of the Great Lakes with many other jurisdictions, and although Ontario is the only Canadian jurisdiction on four of the Great Lakes, and of course the fifth one is totally an American-bordered lake, we have some interests shared with the other jurisdictions. As fresh water supply resources become scarcer and other jurisdictions pay close attention to the Great Lakes, it is important that we ensure that we have strong protection in place and co-operation with our neighbours so that we can ensure we continue to enjoy and profit from healthy Great Lakes.

Could the minister tell the House what actions we are taking in Ontario with our provincial and American counterparts to ensure that this is the case?

Hon. Donna H. Cansfield: Thanks very much for the question. There's no question that international action was needed to fully protect our Great Lakes. We do share the border with the United States; it runs through four of the Great Lakes. Water doesn't stop flowing because of a dotted line on a map, so water diversion is a critical issue for all of us. The loss of any water is critical on both sides.

That's why in 2007 our government passed the Safeguarding and Sustaining Ontario's Water Act. It made sure that we had an agreement with our southern friends and that we were on the same page. We have eight great lakes that border on the States. They've had to craft an agreement, and I'll speak about it later on in the Legislature, but it's a really good example whereby, working together, we've made a significant agreement that will impact all of our lives, surrounding the Great Lakes, in the next number of years to come, and we will continue to do so.

TOBACCO CONTROL

Ms. Laurie Scott: My question is for the Minister of Health Promotion. On the main page of the website of Philip Morris USA it says, "We are the largest tobacco company in the USA." In 2007-08, your ministry will spend over $56 million to get Ontarians to reduce their use of tobacco, but the irony is this: Millions and millions of Ontario taxpayers' dollars are being invested into tobacco stocks.

My question is, can you explain why you are allowing $21 million of taxpayers' money, paid to the Ontario public service employees' pension trust, to be invested into the largest tobacco company in the USA, Philip Morris?

Hon. Margarett R. Best: Thank you to the member opposite for the question. I will tell the member opposite that the Ministry of Health Promotion is responsible for overseeing the smoke-free Ontario strategy. The smoke-free Ontario strategy promotes healthier lives for thousands of Ontarians. The reason for the smoke-free Ontario strategy is because tobacco smoke kills many Ontarians—13,000, as a matter of fact—every year. It costs the health care system millions and millions of dollars. We continue to have strategies to address the issue of smoking in Ontario, and we will continue to do so because it's a big issue for the health of Ontarians.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. Supplementary?

Ms. Laurie Scott: That's a very interesting strategy from the Minister of Health Promotion. Your ministry has spent more than $13 million on smoking cessation products and programs. You have stated that public health officials are visiting tobacco vendors. Yet despite this, you continue to allow illegal and dangerous tobacco products to be sold to children. Minister, $79.9 million is the amount of money, taxpayer-paid dollars, that the teachers' union of Ontario invests in Altria, the parent company of Philip Morris, which I mentioned in the previous question.

You have stated yourself today that the health costs of Ontarians who use tobacco products have a massive effect on the health system in this province. Do you not feel that, in the best interests of Ontario taxpayers, their money should be invested elsewhere?

Hon. Margarett R. Best: Again, I would advise the member opposite that my ministry is responsible for the Smoke-Free Ontario Act, and the reason why this ministry is looking into tobacco smoking is that it's a huge issue for the province of Ontario. The reason for that is because it is the number one preventable cause of death in Ontario. Sixteen thousand Ontarians die every year from tobacco smoke. That's why we have a number of different programs in this ministry that address the issue of tobacco smoking. The cost to the taxpayers in Ontario is $2.7 billion in lost productivity and $1.7 billion in health care costs. Our plan and our programs are designed to help—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you, Minister. New question.

TOBACCO CONTROL

M me France Gélinas: Ma question est pour la ministre de la Promotion de la santé.

In March 2008, she said that since 2003, tobacco use in Ontario has fallen by over 30%. Yet from Health Canada we get stats that show that it has flat-lined in this period and, really, from 2005 to 2007 it has increased from 16% to 18%. Why is the minister attempting to paint a distorted rosy picture of smoking rates?

Hon. Margarett R. Best: Our government has increased our investment in tobacco control by 600%. Our smoke-free Ontario strategy is designed to prevent children and youth from starting to smoke, to help Ontarians quit smoking, and also to protect Ontarians from exposure to second-hand smoke. The strategy is the most comprehensive tobacco control strategy Ontario has ever had, and it's the strongest among North American countries.

The Smoke-Free Ontario Act prohibits smoking in enclosed workplaces and enclosed public places. On May 31, 2008, the provision of the act prohibiting the display of tobacco products at point of sale came into force. We recently amended the—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you, Minister. Supplementary?

M me France Gélinas: Smoke-free Ontario is a good program, but I am concerned about how we are measuring smoking rates. What the minister is measuring right now is the sale of legal cigarettes, but that tells us very little about how much people in Ontario actually smoke. This is especially true for young people, who are three times as likely to use cigarillos, which are not in your stats, and to use contraband cigarettes. We need new action, new regulation, not the same, not complacency. What concrete action is this minister prepared to take to address the real smoking trends in Ontario, such as rising cigarillo and contraband cigarette use amongst youth?

Hon. Margarett R. Best: First of all, I would like to thank the member for admitting that the Smoke-Free Ontario Act is a good strategy and a good act. That's why we continue to work with this act and con